Both [conservatives and liberals] hold the same premise"the mind-body dichotomy"but choose opposite sides of this lethal fallacy.

The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man"s spirit, i.e., man"s consciousness; they advocate the State"s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom"). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property"they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation.

The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories"with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe"but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.

Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the "mystics of spirit." And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the "mystics of muscle."

This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises. Observe that the conservatives insult and demean the rich or those who succeed in material production, regarding them as morally inferior"and that the liberals treat ideas as a cynical con game. "Control," to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man"s consciousness; the liberals, his body.

At 4/20/2013 2:23:25 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Observe that the conservatives insult and demean the rich or those who succeed in material production, regarding them as morally inferior"

I think this isn't true at all. There are plenty of rich conservatives.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

What were you thinking? I'm just curious. Why would you take an excerpt from a book that you KNOW a lot of people here have probably read...and then not cite the author or use quotes or even italicize to indicate that these aren't your words. Why?

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

"The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom")."

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

At 4/20/2013 2:14:35 PM, 000ike wrote:What were you thinking? I'm just curious. Why would you take an excerpt from a book that you KNOW a lot of people here have probably read...and then not cite the author or use quotes or even italicize to indicate that these aren't your words. Why?

At 4/20/2013 2:14:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:"The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom")."

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

I find it difficult to respect anyone small minded enough to make PC an issue. Would it be clearer if we just called it "basic civility" instead? You're not the one who determines what is offensive. The person to whom you direct your comments will make that determination - and so if you have no problem refraining from calling your parents "idiots" or calling your professor a "dimwit" based on their relative aversion to those terms, then I'm sure you can refrain from calling African Americans "the blacks" or Asians "the chinks" without being a pissant about it.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

Many conservatives don't understand social contract. They want taxpayer-paid roads and emergency services. They want a powerful military. They want to invade various middle-eastern countries. But... they don't want to pay taxes and balk at tax increases crying government control, oppression, and "socialism."

At 4/20/2013 2:14:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:"The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom")."

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

I find it difficult to respect anyone small minded enough to make PC an issue. Would it be clearer if we just called it "basic civility" instead? You're not the one who determines what is offensive. The person to whom you direct your comments will make that determination - and so if you have no problem refraining from calling your parents "idiots" or calling your professor a "dimwit" based on their relative aversion to those terms, then I'm sure you can refrain from calling African Americans "the blacks" or Asians "the chinks" without being a pissant about it.

Ideas being off limits by threat of social ostracization is not an issue?

At 4/20/2013 2:14:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:"The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom")."

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

I find it difficult to respect anyone small minded enough to make PC an issue. Would it be clearer if we just called it "basic civility" instead? You're not the one who determines what is offensive. The person to whom you direct your comments will make that determination - and so if you have no problem refraining from calling your parents "idiots" or calling your professor a "dimwit" based on their relative aversion to those terms, then I'm sure you can refrain from calling African Americans "the blacks" or Asians "the chinks" without being a pissant about it.

Ideas being off limits by threat of social ostracization is not an issue?

Since when was calling African Americans the "N" word or "Blacks" or calling asians "chinks" considered an idea?

You thought you were sneaky. Now lets replace your question with the appropriate diction.

"Insults being off limits by threat of social ostracism is not an issue?"

No it's not. It's a natural consequence.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 4/20/2013 2:14:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:"The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom")."

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

I find it difficult to respect anyone small minded enough to make PC an issue. Would it be clearer if we just called it "basic civility" instead? You're not the one who determines what is offensive. The person to whom you direct your comments will make that determination - and so if you have no problem refraining from calling your parents "idiots" or calling your professor a "dimwit" based on their relative aversion to those terms, then I'm sure you can refrain from calling African Americans "the blacks" or Asians "the chinks" without being a pissant about it.

Ideas being off limits by threat of social ostracization is not an issue?

How dare you imply that welfare and food stamp and other giveouts be immune from scrutiny because of PC.

Crying about how much the Trump wall is going to cost is like a heroin addict complaining about how much the needles cost.

At 4/20/2013 2:14:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:"The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom")."

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

I find it difficult to respect anyone small minded enough to make PC an issue. Would it be clearer if we just called it "basic civility" instead? You're not the one who determines what is offensive. The person to whom you direct your comments will make that determination - and so if you have no problem refraining from calling your parents "idiots" or calling your professor a "dimwit" based on their relative aversion to those terms, then I'm sure you can refrain from calling African Americans "the blacks" or Asians "the chinks" without being a pissant about it.

Ideas being off limits by threat of social ostracization is not an issue?

How dare you imply that welfare and food stamp and other giveouts be immune from scrutiny because of PC.

At 4/20/2013 2:58:22 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:Many conservatives don't understand social contract. They want taxpayer-paid roads and emergency services. They want a powerful military. They want to invade various middle-eastern countries. But... they don't want to pay taxes and balk at tax increases crying government control, oppression, and "socialism."

Ah, the magic "S" word- it's become the new "C" word.

From my experience conservatives tend to be the biggest hypocrites. Not to say I'm a liberal, and not to say liberals don't spout their fair share of hypocrisy- contradicting policies just seem to run rampant in the Republican party, especially in the deep South.

At 4/20/2013 2:14:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:"The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom")."

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

I find it difficult to respect anyone small minded enough to make PC an issue. Would it be clearer if we just called it "basic civility" instead? You're not the one who determines what is offensive. The person to whom you direct your comments will make that determination - and so if you have no problem refraining from calling your parents "idiots" or calling your professor a "dimwit" based on their relative aversion to those terms, then I'm sure you can refrain from calling African Americans "the blacks" or Asians "the chinks" without being a pissant about it.

Ideas being off limits by threat of social ostracization is not an issue?

Since when was calling African Americans the "N" word or "Blacks" or calling asians "chinks" considered an idea?

You thought you were sneaky. Now lets replace your question with the appropriate diction.

"Insults being off limits by threat of social ostracism is not an issue?"

No it's not. It's a natural consequence.

I responded to your post presuming you had thoroughly read roy's post, and accepted his implications of PC.

At 4/20/2013 2:14:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:"The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom")."

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

I find it difficult to respect anyone small minded enough to make PC an issue. Would it be clearer if we just called it "basic civility" instead? You're not the one who determines what is offensive. The person to whom you direct your comments will make that determination - and so if you have no problem refraining from calling your parents "idiots" or calling your professor a "dimwit" based on their relative aversion to those terms, then I'm sure you can refrain from calling African Americans "the blacks" or Asians "the chinks" without being a pissant about it.

Ideas being off limits by threat of social ostracization is not an issue?

Since when was calling African Americans the "N" word or "Blacks" or calling asians "chinks" considered an idea?

You thought you were sneaky. Now lets replace your question with the appropriate diction.

"Insults being off limits by threat of social ostracism is not an issue?"

No it's not. It's a natural consequence.

I responded to your post presuming you had thoroughly read roy's post, and accepted his implications of PC.

PC refers to the linguistics of political policies and common interaction...and that's exactly how Roy used it - in referencing textbooks, government, and social pressure. Besides, he listed it distinctly among other facets of the "liberal agenda" so my response is quite relevant and appropriate. Yours is not.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 4/20/2013 2:14:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:"The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom")."

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

I find it difficult to respect anyone small minded enough to make PC an issue. Would it be clearer if we just called it "basic civility" instead? You're not the one who determines what is offensive. The person to whom you direct your comments will make that determination - and so if you have no problem refraining from calling your parents "idiots" or calling your professor a "dimwit" based on their relative aversion to those terms, then I'm sure you can refrain from calling African Americans "the blacks" or Asians "the chinks" without being a pissant about it.

Ideas being off limits by threat of social ostracization is not an issue?

Since when was calling African Americans the "N" word or "Blacks" or calling asians "chinks" considered an idea?

You thought you were sneaky. Now lets replace your question with the appropriate diction.

"Insults being off limits by threat of social ostracism is not an issue?"

No it's not. It's a natural consequence.

I responded to your post presuming you had thoroughly read roy's post, and accepted his implications of PC.

PC refers to the linguistics of political policies and common interaction...and that's exactly how Roy used it - in referencing textbooks, government, and social pressure. Besides, he listed it distinctly among other facets of the "liberal agenda" so my response is quite relevant and appropriate. Yours is not.

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

At 4/20/2013 2:14:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:"The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom")."

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

I find it difficult to respect anyone small minded enough to make PC an issue. Would it be clearer if we just called it "basic civility" instead? You're not the one who determines what is offensive. The person to whom you direct your comments will make that determination - and so if you have no problem refraining from calling your parents "idiots" or calling your professor a "dimwit" based on their relative aversion to those terms, then I'm sure you can refrain from calling African Americans "the blacks" or Asians "the chinks" without being a pissant about it.

Ideas being off limits by threat of social ostracization is not an issue?

Since when was calling African Americans the "N" word or "Blacks" or calling asians "chinks" considered an idea?

You thought you were sneaky. Now lets replace your question with the appropriate diction.

"Insults being off limits by threat of social ostracism is not an issue?"

No it's not. It's a natural consequence.

I responded to your post presuming you had thoroughly read roy's post, and accepted his implications of PC.

PC refers to the linguistics of political policies and common interaction...and that's exactly how Roy used it - in referencing textbooks, government, and social pressure. Besides, he listed it distinctly among other facets of the "liberal agenda" so my response is quite relevant and appropriate. Yours is not.

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

PC being one of the means through which the liberals "control ideas"..... Yes he's referring to linguistic PC.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 4/20/2013 2:14:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:"The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom")."

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

I find it difficult to respect anyone small minded enough to make PC an issue. Would it be clearer if we just called it "basic civility" instead? You're not the one who determines what is offensive. The person to whom you direct your comments will make that determination - and so if you have no problem refraining from calling your parents "idiots" or calling your professor a "dimwit" based on their relative aversion to those terms, then I'm sure you can refrain from calling African Americans "the blacks" or Asians "the chinks" without being a pissant about it.

Ideas being off limits by threat of social ostracization is not an issue?

Since when was calling African Americans the "N" word or "Blacks" or calling asians "chinks" considered an idea?

You thought you were sneaky. Now lets replace your question with the appropriate diction.

"Insults being off limits by threat of social ostracism is not an issue?"

No it's not. It's a natural consequence.

I responded to your post presuming you had thoroughly read roy's post, and accepted his implications of PC.

PC refers to the linguistics of political policies and common interaction...and that's exactly how Roy used it - in referencing textbooks, government, and social pressure. Besides, he listed it distinctly among other facets of the "liberal agenda" so my response is quite relevant and appropriate. Yours is not.

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

PC being one of the means through which the liberals "control ideas"..... Yes he's referring to linguistic PC.

Okay, fine -- you don't think pc is an issue if it's used to control ideas?

At 4/20/2013 2:14:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:"The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom")."

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

I find it difficult to respect anyone small minded enough to make PC an issue. Would it be clearer if we just called it "basic civility" instead? You're not the one who determines what is offensive. The person to whom you direct your comments will make that determination - and so if you have no problem refraining from calling your parents "idiots" or calling your professor a "dimwit" based on their relative aversion to those terms, then I'm sure you can refrain from calling African Americans "the blacks" or Asians "the chinks" without being a pissant about it.

Ideas being off limits by threat of social ostracization is not an issue?

Since when was calling African Americans the "N" word or "Blacks" or calling asians "chinks" considered an idea?

You thought you were sneaky. Now lets replace your question with the appropriate diction.

"Insults being off limits by threat of social ostracism is not an issue?"

No it's not. It's a natural consequence.

I responded to your post presuming you had thoroughly read roy's post, and accepted his implications of PC.

PC refers to the linguistics of political policies and common interaction...and that's exactly how Roy used it - in referencing textbooks, government, and social pressure. Besides, he listed it distinctly among other facets of the "liberal agenda" so my response is quite relevant and appropriate. Yours is not.

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

PC being one of the means through which the liberals "control ideas"..... Yes he's referring to linguistic PC.

Okay, fine -- you don't think pc is an issue if it's used to control ideas?

holy shpit guy, we already went over this. Roy is wrong, and you are wrong. PC does not control "ideas" it controls "insults"....and in a manner no more obtrusive than the social standard of not calling people idiots - because idiot is perceived by others as insulting. If you have no problem NOT calling everyone an idiot, then you should have no problem NOT calling African Americans negroes and Asians chinks.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 4/20/2013 2:14:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:"The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom")."

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

I find it difficult to respect anyone small minded enough to make PC an issue. Would it be clearer if we just called it "basic civility" instead? You're not the one who determines what is offensive. The person to whom you direct your comments will make that determination - and so if you have no problem refraining from calling your parents "idiots" or calling your professor a "dimwit" based on their relative aversion to those terms, then I'm sure you can refrain from calling African Americans "the blacks" or Asians "the chinks" without being a pissant about it.

Ideas being off limits by threat of social ostracization is not an issue?

Since when was calling African Americans the "N" word or "Blacks" or calling asians "chinks" considered an idea?

You thought you were sneaky. Now lets replace your question with the appropriate diction.

"Insults being off limits by threat of social ostracism is not an issue?"

No it's not. It's a natural consequence.

I responded to your post presuming you had thoroughly read roy's post, and accepted his implications of PC.

PC refers to the linguistics of political policies and common interaction...and that's exactly how Roy used it - in referencing textbooks, government, and social pressure. Besides, he listed it distinctly among other facets of the "liberal agenda" so my response is quite relevant and appropriate. Yours is not.

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

PC being one of the means through which the liberals "control ideas"..... Yes he's referring to linguistic PC.

Okay, fine -- you don't think pc is an issue if it's used to control ideas?

holy shpit guy, we already went over this. Roy is wrong, and you are wrong. PC does not control "ideas" it controls "insults"....and in a manner no more obtrusive than the social standard of not calling people idiots - because idiot is perceived by others as insulting. If you have no problem NOT calling everyone an idiot, then you should have no problem NOT calling African Americans negroes and Asians chinks.

I knew that you believed that... the only reason I got involved was because you didn't bring up issue with roy's implications in the first place. Let's just forget this...

At 4/20/2013 2:14:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

1. I'm sorry, but 'political correctness' has two wildly divergent meanings. The first is being ridiculously careful and referring to everybody in the most elaborate terms. The second is not using racial epithets.

What liberals overwhelmingly desire is the latter.2. What propaganda? Asking people to recycle? If you're talking about ad campaigns by private groups... well, that's technically propaganda, but the general consensus is that people should be able to try and convince others, yes?3. "Strong favoritism to approved media?"4. Government funding of arts, yes. Where do you get 'of which they approve'?5. Who isn't allowing home school? I know lots of liberals who think it's a lousy idea, or are suspicious of the motives of many, but it doesn't follow that they wouldn't allow it. As far as federal standards... well, yes. These federal standards are generally, to the best of my understanding 'Ensure that most children can do X by grade Y'. Not exactly devious propaganda there.6. Do you have any evidence showing a clear trend of discrimination against conservative professors?

At 4/20/2013 2:14:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:"The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom")."

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

I find it difficult to respect anyone small minded enough to make PC an issue. Would it be clearer if we just called it "basic civility" instead? You're not the one who determines what is offensive. The person to whom you direct your comments will make that determination - and so if you have no problem refraining from calling your parents "idiots" or calling your professor a "dimwit" based on their relative aversion to those terms, then I'm sure you can refrain from calling African Americans "the blacks" or Asians "the chinks" without being a pissant about it.

Ideas being off limits by threat of social ostracization is not an issue?

How dare you imply that welfare and food stamp and other giveouts be immune from scrutiny because of PC.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 4/20/2013 2:14:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:"The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom")."

Rand had a major misunderstanding. Liberals want censorship through standards of political correctness (formally imposed in textbooks and government, by social pressure elsewhere); they want government control of ideas through propagandizing a green agenda, political correctness, and strong favoritism to approved media; the government funds art of wich they approve, they won't allow home school and impose Federal standards, conservative professors are deliberately excluded from hiring.

I find it difficult to respect anyone small minded enough to make PC an issue. Would it be clearer if we just called it "basic civility" instead? You're not the one who determines what is offensive. The person to whom you direct your comments will make that determination - and so if you have no problem refraining from calling your parents "idiots" or calling your professor a "dimwit" based on their relative aversion to those terms, then I'm sure you can refrain from calling African Americans "the blacks" or Asians "the chinks" without being a pissant about it.

Ideas being off limits by threat of social ostracization is not an issue?

How dare you imply that welfare and food stamp and other giveouts be immune from scrutiny because of PC.

At 4/20/2013 2:22:29 PM, 000ike wrote:I find it difficult to respect anyone small minded enough to make PC an issue. Would it be clearer if we just called it "basic civility" instead? You're not the one who determines what is offensive. The person to whom you direct your comments will make that determination - and so if you have no problem refraining from calling your parents "idiots" or calling your professor a "dimwit" based on their relative aversion to those terms, then I'm sure you can refrain from calling African Americans "the blacks" or Asians "the chinks" without being a pissant about it.

No one objects to politeness. Conservatives are far more civil than liberals. Demonstrators with signs to "Kill Bush" were ignored by the press, who diligently search for and publicized anything over the line about Obama. There are no bounds on language used by liberals about conservatives.

The standards applied to K-12 textbooks show political correctness at work. (The book, "The New Thought Police" documents it.) There are lists of acceptable and unacceptable foods. Dick and Jane cannot eat cookies; yogurt is acceptable. Asians can not be depicted as studious. No example of great Black athletes can be cited. Pioneers going West by covered wagon cannot show the woman riding while the man walks, even though it is historical fact. There are about 400 rules of political correctness.

Recently, the AP style book banned use of "illegal immigrant" to refer to illegal immigrants.

Discrimination against conservatives applying for university faculty position is well documented. Conservative speakers are consistently sho9uted down on college campuses, and liberals rarely object.

At 4/20/2013 4:17:24 PM, 000ike wrote:holy shpit guy, we already went over this. Roy is wrong, and you are wrong. PC does not control "ideas" it controls "insults"....and in a manner no more obtrusive than the social standard of not calling people idiots - because idiot is perceived by others as insulting. If you have no problem NOT calling everyone an idiot, then you should have no problem NOT calling African Americans negroes and Asians chinks.

Nonsense, conservatives are not against respectful language. Keep in mind that liberals are allowed to refer to conservatives with virtually any obscene language they want to.

The intent of language control by political correctness is to make it morally wrong to suggest that men and women are inherently different, that illegal immigrants ought to be treated as illegal; that cultures have substantial differences; that "bad" foods cannot be thought "good;" that every green energy boondoggle ought to be immune from criticism; etc., etc.

In previous times, forbidden language was along the lines of "taking the Lord's name in vain." The idea was to promote and elevate religion through control of language. Present political correctness is to promote a pseudo-religious ideology. People who don't believe global warming is a crisis are to be portrayed as not just wrong, but evil. Smokers are not just taking health risks, they are evil. It's endless.